Histos () IX–XV REVIEW–DISCUSSION GREEK SECULAR HISTORIANS IN LATE ANTIQUITY B. Bleckmann and T. Stickler, edd., Griechische Profanhistoriker des fünften nachchristlichen Jahrhunderts . Historia Einzelschriften <. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, . Pp. <. Hardcover, €.. ISBN @<----. he study of late ancient historiography is flourishing, particularly in continental Europe, and the present volume gathers some of the T finest scholars currently working on the topic. 1 It collects papers presented at a conference in Düsseldorf in , which was one of the events leading up to the project Kleine und fragmentarische Historiker der Spätantike , directed by Bruno Bleckmann and Markus Stein. Planning to produce a series of commented editions of lesser and fragmentary historians from Late Antiquity, it promises to be one of the most important projects on ancient historiography of the coming years, and thus provides an additional reason for graduate students and scholars in late-ancient studies to brush up on their German. The quality of the present volume bodes well for the rest of the project. As the title indicates, the main scope of the volume is Greek secular historians preserved in fragmentary state. This is a fairly traditional focus, as Greek secular historiography is still the paradigmatic genre of late-ancient historiography, together with Ammianus Marcellinus for the Latin side (at least from a classicist’s perspective). Moreover, the fragmentary authors concerned have all been properly edited. 2 As such, there is a good basis for the studies gathered in this volume. At the same time, most specialists know that Blockley’s edition is based on some disputable methodological choices, in particular that of taking too expansive a view of what counts as a fragment. Indeed, the study of late-ancient historiography has encountered scepticism in some quarters, and this is partially due to a perceived lack of methodological rigour. For example, in his introduction (@–<, at ) Bruno Bleckmann warns against methodological ‘purism’ consisting in taking into 1 The research underpinning the present discussion has received funding from the Eu- ropean Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/@–) / ERC Grant Agreement no. 2 R. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire (Liverpool, <). ISSN: - Copyright © Peter Van Nuffelen April X Peter Van Nuffelen account only fragments that are explicitly ascribed to a lost work. He points to the fact that many later epitomes by and large summarise a single work. In this, he consciously deviates from the rules laid down by F. Jacoby for classical Greek historiography. I would argue that even if there is a high likelihood that a later text relies largely on the lost historian, such evidence can never have the same status as named fragments. Leaving aside the fact that the identification of a single unnamed source of an epitome must remain hypothetical (even if it can be very likely), the epitomiser may have intervened more or less extensively in the text. The clash between these two approaches can, in fact, be witnessed in the first two chapters of the volume, both concerned with Eunapius. Eunapius (end of fourth–beginning of fifth century) is known through a series of excerpts and a summary by Photius. It is further known, again from Photius, that Zosimus (early sixth century) relied heavily on Eunapius in his own history. The first chapter is a pas-de-deux by F. Paschoud and A. Baldini (–), who can be credited with having formulated the dominant view on the nature and extent of Eunapius’ history. The original feature of the chap- ter is that both scholars set out their agreements and differences, allowing the reader quick access to their interpretations and hypotheses. The foundation of their position is the total dependency of Zosimus on his sources: in their view, Zosimus is unable to have thoughts of his own. As elegantly put by Baldini: ‘le caratteristiche strutturali della mente di Zosimo impediscono di credere che egli abbia raccolto da Eunapio i nudi fatti e li abbia conditi, come dire, con considerazioni di stampo provvidenzialistico pagano ispirate da altri autori’ (). This is the paradigm of the ‘stupid’ Zosimus (as formulat- ed in a famous riposte to this thesis by P. Speck).3 They also argue that Eun- apius relied on a pagan Western source, onto which Paschoud likes to put the name of Nicomachus Flavianus. Disagreement concerns the nature of the two editions of Eunapius that are mentioned by Photius and the role played by the battle of Adrianopolis in his interpretation of recent history. Having their positions set out with such admirable clarity, the reader more easily spots the weaker points. First, methodologically Paschoud puts the carriage before the horse. His chapter starts out by recognising that the extant excerpts reveal differences with the narrative of Zosimus. This is also highlighted by U. Hartmann in the second chapter, where it is noted that there are no providentialist remarks in the extant fragments of Eunapius. In response, Paschoud argues that this is because they are fragments and there- fore offer a distorted image of Eunapius (, ). Even without lapsing into the form of purism criticised by Bleckmann, it is questionable to base the in- terpretation of a lost work primarily on a dependent text and not primarily on the named fragments: the degree of certainty of the Eunapian origin of 3 P. Speck, ‘Wie dumm darf Zosimus sein?’, Byzantinoslavica (): –. Review of Bleckmann and Stickler, Griechische Profanhistoriker XI the fragments is indisputably higher than that of any given passage of Zosi- mus. The second axiom is the ‘stupidity’ of Zosimus, whereas, in fact, Paschoud’s own reconstruction points to a greater degree of independence on Zosimus’ part. For example: Paschoud notices that the same anti- Christian tendency is present throughout Zosimus’ narrative, even where he is dependent on Olympiodorus. Clinging to the supposition that Zosimus does not do anything other than copy Eunapius and Olympiodorus, he is forced to argue () that Eunapius and Olympiodorus both used a lost Historia adversus Christianos . Is it not more likely that this is an interpretation intro- duced into his material by Zosimus himself? Similarly, the reference to Po- lybius and his account of Roman expansion in Zosimus’ opening pages is at- tributed to Eunapius on rather weak grounds: ‘Ce motif tiré de la littérature grecque ne peut guère être issu d’une source occidentale, ni être attribué à l’invention de Zosime. Il s’agit donc d’ajouts appartenant en propre à Eunape’ (). Is it really unthinkable that an educated Byzantine official, in- tent on writing a history, would have read Polybius or known about him? Moreover, Paschoud is willing to accept that Zosimus relied on more than Eunapius and Olympiodorus, as he proposes a different source for the years @– (). These brief remarks suggest, in my view, that the Paschoud/Baldini in- terpretation of Eunapius is up for total revision: the way forward lies, in fact, in tearing down the whole edifice and constructing a new one, in which Zosimus is seen as an independent historian. This does not mean we have to abandon the idea that Zosimus relies on Eunapius or that Zosimus suddenly sheds all his failures; his narrative is not, however, a mere epitome that faith- fully reflects Eunapius (minus the misinterpretations due to Zosimus’ lack of intelligence). And even if it were an epitome, we know that epitomators also projected their own views on the material assembled. A first step in this direction is taken by Udo Hartmann, whose chapter focuses on Eunapius’ Lives of the Philosophers (–<). He clearly distinguishes Zosimus’ view of history, based on the idea of decline, from that of Eunapius, who considered current emperors to be bad, but did not see this fact as a sign of inexorable decline (see in particular n. ). He points out that Zosimus’ straightforward vision of decline is only articulated in digressions, for which he in all likelihood was not dependent on Eunapius. In the extant fragments, Eunapius himself, by contrast, emphasises the moral utility of history and the continuous presence of divine providence for the Empire. Hartmann also finds the same ideas in the Lives of the Philosophers , thus pointing out the con- sistency of Eunapius’ thought. Hartmann also reverts to more straightfor- ward ideas about the two editions of the Histories of Eunapius, in contrast to the complex hypotheses developed by Baldini and Paschoud. Hartmann proposes that the first published edition ran from Claudius Gothicus to the death of Theodosius I in and was then continued until (this still im- XII Peter Van Nuffelen plies rejecting some of Photius’ statements (Cod. @@), in particular that the two editions covered the same period). Hartmann’s contribution is, in my view, more successful than Paschoud and Baldini’s, for it takes the methodo- logical precaution of starting from extant fragments, instead of amalgamating Zosimus and Eunapius from the outset. Eunapius’ successor, Olympiodorus of Thebes, is the subject of T. Stick- ler’s chapter (<–), which focuses in particular on the way Photius has summarised his work. Indeed, in contrast with Eunapius, we do not possess excerpts of Olympiodorus, and his work is thus only indirectly accessible through the summary in Photius and his use by Sozomen, Zosimus, and Philostorgius (B. Bleckmann has, however, recently challenged the depend- ency of Philostorgius on Olympiodorus).4 In other summaries, Photius is known to have focused on the particular and exceptional; he did not wish to offer a balanced summary of the work. Applied to Olympiodorus, this allows Stickler to underline the fact that the summary is a collection of disconnected impressions. Hence the invitation to entertain the possibility that Olympi- odorus did not write exclusively on Western events.5 Dariusz Brodka offers a close analysis of Priscus’ account of the cam- paign of Basiliscus against Geiseric in < (–).